NONE! I have repeatedly told you this. I have never used more than one sample at a time. I have depended on the analysis of others. I cannot see how I can make this any clearer. I shall ignore all future questions on this because I cannot see any point repeating myself any further.

I already listed all the periodicities that I know of that Tifft reported in the 1970s. Subsequently he developed a theory and then began to find additional periods related to that theory. I have ignored that later work as possibly being selective.

The Tomes list from the Harmonics Theory was originally posted to usenet in 1994. It was also on my web site from that time. I repeat this original list here now.
Shortly after I made this comment:

In other papers Tifft mentions 2.67 km/s also.

As far as I can remember Tifft published the paper on CMBR basis in AstroPhys Journal also. I know nothing about the 18 km/s galactic expansion. It was not in any of the papers that I read. Maybe this came later. I have not done any analysis of the newer surveys, and agree that much more data is available. That was one of the questions I came to the forum to ask about getting data. I do not want to get 100 GB of data! Just a modest amount is quite sufficient. Perhaps when these discussions have run their course it would be appropriate for someone to advise me and assist me through the various steps in getting a modest sized sample or two for analysis. If that proves fruitful, them the same technique can be applied on larger volumes of data.

For straight forward galaxies with a single redshift, the easiest way to look at periodicity is as in the survey that I quoted with the 128 Mpc period --- to pick a sample that is in a small region of the sky (so called pencil beam) because then you do not have to worry about our motion relative to CMBR or anything else like that. Ideally the central redshift should be to better than 1 km/s. This can be repeated with many small areas of sky, the same consistent set periods should result, but in different directions there will be different starting offsets. When the whole sky is examined these starting offsets should be cleary explained by our CMBR motion.

Having stated that, I suspect that Tifft's 18 km/s figure may be some sort of bias in the CMBR due to our nearby galaxy centre in one direction. He may have found that this extra component brings all the different directions into better agreement. I am just guessing based on his earlier work.

I certainly think that it is a good idea to replicate Tifft's work. The only case I know of this being done was by Guthrie and Napier who did not find a 72 km/s period but did find a 37.6+/- 2 km/s period or something like that. It agreed with the 36 km/s one of Tifft's. But again the sample was much smaller than available today.

Much of the early work on the 72 km/s period came from single galaxy clusters where it was found that the differences in velocities were often 72 km/s or multiples thereof.

I do not know about Tiffty's bistates as already stated. My guess is that you can take a galaxy spectrum and by correlating it against a typical galaxy spectrum and varying the red shift adjustment continuously get a graph which has peaks at more than one place. This is standard variance analysis and i assume this technique is used when multiple absorptions at different redshifts are detected fro quasars. I have downloaded a few spectra to try and do this, but as far as I could tell they were all random noise and had no resemblance to anything at any red shift.

I missed this one before. This background I am about to give is necessary to answer your question. It is also of interest in seeing how I got to the redshift periodicities.

Originally I had no such concept in the harmonics theory and so had a problem of how to deal with the redshift. I first tried to address this by assuming that as the redshift velocity gos from 0 to c there will be the occurence of all the harmonics, so that e.g. the h=2880 one which is very strong will give c/2880 = 104.095 km/s. This didn't fit anything and stumped me for a while. Then I realized that Einstein's velocity addition formula for 104 km/s repeated 2880 times would not give c, indeed even repeated 1000000 times it would not. So I understood that you cannot get redshift periodicities by dividing by c. Because c really represents the result of adding an infinite number of any finite sized step together.

So I looked at how can you get a standing wave that is finite. It occurred to me that a wave which had extent over a distance to which z=1 would have an exact ratio of 2 in the wavelengths at the two places. Because harmonics theory says that standing waves produce 2x frequency, and this distance gives 1/2 frequency (i.e. 2 x wavelength) there is a feedback cycle. So I took the z=1 distance as the fundamental wave. From the Einstein velocity addition formula you can deduce that over that distance if the wave is divided in to h parts by the h harmonic then the relationship is (1+z)^h=2. When I understood that, and put in h=2880 I then got 72.15 km/s and I knew that I had a sensible solution. Then I calculated all the other strong harmonics giving the table that I just posted. I already found lists of redshifts that seemed to show several of the longer periodicities like the ~8600 km/s one.


It was a bit later that I realized that because at the nuclear scale energy is always moving to smaller waves (harmonic frequencies) then the mass of particles must grow over time. However if all particles have the same wavelength then they cannot easily do that because the waves going into one particle are the same ones coming out of others that are far away. This is not an easy problem to solve. In the end I understood that multiple frequencies are there at the same time and that one gets stronger and another gets weaker. At some point there will be sufficient stress on the wave structure to flip to a new state. When this happens to just a single atom, we see it as a photon being emitted or absorbed. When it happens to the whole solar system in a short time we see it as a mass extinction event because most of the life probably gets internally microwaved in a short period of time.

The funny thing with the harmonics theory is that you get a whole set of sine waves and add them up, but the answer is not what you expect. It is not a wavy line. It is near enough a horizontal line with vertical lines sticking up from it. It is rhythm. The bist that stick up are like a ruler in inches, where the 1/2" and 1/4" and 1/8" each stick up a bit less. But a bit more complicated than that. Here is an example graph. It has the time axis horizontally and the amplitude vertically and I split it into 12 equal sections to show how self similar it is in 1/12s.


This gives the best idea that I can give of answering your question. It is only one dimensional but we have to imagine space and time filled in this way. It shows multiple levels of periodicities. You can see some big steps that repeat and some medium ones and some small ones. The periodicities are like that and the jumps in mas will show a similar pattern. Many small jumps and some medium and few large ones. But always in steps from the periodicities listed.

You might like to calculate the mass difference between a proton and a neutron for fun and divide that difference into the proton mass. See if it comes out near to a strong harmonic.

Here are some statements, by rtomes, in this thread (post number given in the 'Posted by' line):Here are some extracts from the Tifft ApJ paper referenced above:rtomes, did you read Tifft's "Astrophysical Journal Vol 221 Pg 756-775 1978 May 1" paper?

Thank you for the clarification.

In light of your clarification, what status does anything you have posted in this thread, re quasars, have (in a scientific sense)?

I asked this question once before, and I seem to have missed your answer; if you already answered it, please point me to that answer; if not, please answer it.

An extension and clarification: what (ATM) claims, if any, are you making wrt quasars?

ETA: perhaps I did miss the answer; is it in post #90?

Could you please point out the post(s) in which you answered this question? If you haven't yet answered it, please do so now.Comment: it would seem that the main Tifft paper cited (concerning "periodicities") was either not read, or misunderstood (see previous post).

If we cannot establish the consistency link between the key Tifft paper and your ATM ideas, starting with an unambiguous definition of the key term (the redshift of a galaxy), how can we even begin to evaluate (much less question or challenge) claims such as this?

The work that I did on redshift periodicities was in 1994. There may well have been things in the papers that did not sink into my mind. I was concentrating on the periodicities that he found. If I had read these later after thinking about the mechanisms of redshift change in steps then I might well have paid more attention to these matters.

I have simply been honest about what I know about and what I don't, as requested. You need to understand that the redshift periodicities is just one of very many areas of cycle research that I studied. Also I am 60 years old now and do not always remember everything perfectly accurately.

UPDATED

Sorry. In rereading this the bistates is simply meaning a 36 km/s periodicity not a 72 km/s one. Yes I did understand about this from Tifft but just did not remember the term. What I wrote previously about bistates was nonsense. My apologies for that.

You can collect the various periodicities reported by Tifft in the 1970s as I did. That way you check that I didn't do any selection. That I do not know everything about the relevant astronomical details is not important to a sensible statistical test. What matters is that there is no biased selection. I think that it is important to only use Tifft's data from before the time at which he developed his own theory, to avoid any possible contamination from that theory.

Then you can check my calculations of the harmonics up to say a million easily if you want to. This has already been done by Pete Brown in Australia (who also pointed out that my harmonics calculation is the same as a known series) and so I am sure that they are right.

Then you can use the formula (1+z)^h=2 to solve for z from each of the strong harmonics that are calculated. The result ought to be the graphic that I posted with the various z values (and some zc values for comparison to redshifts quoted in km/s).

You can then do a statistical check on the matching of the two sets in the range ~100 km/s to ~2 km/s which is the range in which Tifft reported periodicities.

Tifft was certainly not aware of the harmonics theory when he determined his values because it hadn't been invented for another 10 years after that.
I was not aware of any but the 72 km/s periods when I derived my formula, but anyway you can see that it is a very simple formula and cannot be engineered to fit Tifft's data.

I will describe that test in more detail because it is central to my claim. I used the list of harmonics that I posted to usenet and posted here recently. You can see from my graph that the 2.67 km/s period reported by Tifft is present in my graph but was not in that list because it was below the threshhold that I went to. I suggest sticking to that same threshhold because that list was made without awareness of Tifft's work. You may still be able to find some of these posts in usenet archives, but I do not think that matters.

If you look at the Tifft values, taking an average where he reports a similar value several times (e.g. 7.99 and 8.05 would be averaged to 8.02 km/s). Then the Tifft values can be put next to the Tomes list for obvious matches. The percentage differences should be determined in each case. I think that you will find that all are within 0.5% of my figures. However the figures range over a wide set of sizes, and it is easier to understand the percentages differences as being the best test if the logs of all the figures are taken, both mine and Tifft's. Then the figures are more or less evenly spread over an interval from log(100) to log(2) (in km/s). So we make the null hypothesis assumption that either Tomes figures are nonsense or Tiffts figures are nonsense. In case of either being nonsense there is no reason for them to agree with each other.

So the test is to be a chi-square test where the Tifft values are considered as falling within a percentage of the Tomes figures. The percentage is the one thing that is chosen to best fit the data so we say that it is a chi square test with 1 degree of freedom. If the percentage is 0.5% then the intervals are established about the Tomes figures of 0.5% which in log terms means plus or minus log(1.005) about each figure. This chosen range is therefore equal to just this proportion of the whole range: (log(100)-log(2))/log(1.005)/2/9 where the 9 is the number of figures in my list and the 2 is the two sides (+ and -) that we consider the values being within. This answer is that the defined interval is just 1/39 of the entire available space in the (log) range from 2 to 100 km/s.


In fact you find that nearly all the Tifft values fall in this tiny window. I think that it might be 6 out of 6 in the first few papers and maybe 8 out of 9 between all the 1970s papers. The formula for chi-square needs an estimate how many would fall in each region according to the null hypothesis. If there are 9 values then we would expect 9/39 in a region that is 1/39 of the Tifft values in the region within 0.5% of the Tomes values and the other 9*38/39 in the remainder. These values give expected values of 0.23 and 8.77 wheras the observed are (I think) 8 and 1.
Chi square is defined as sigma (o-e)^2/e where e=expected and o=observed. That gives a result of chi-square = 269.4 for 1 d.f.
My chi-square table has for d.f.=1, p=0.1 x2=2.706, p=.05 x2=3.841, p=.02 x2=5.412, p=.01 x2=6.635. You can see that the value 269.4 is a long way further up the table.

Actually, in Section II of this paper, Tifft states very clearly that "bistates is simply [...] a 36 km/s periodicity not a 72 km/s one" is "inconsistent with the internal models of galaxies in DSR1 where a state spacing of 70-75 km s^-1 is clear and no significant amount of 36 km s^-1 periodicity is seen." And Tifft spends quite a few pages in this paper explaining his 'states' model and how he analyses the data to show consistency with his model. Do I correctly understand your post (which I have quoted here) to say that you reject Tifft's 'state' model but accept "a 36 km/s periodicity" despite your rejection?

Alternatively, if you accept this 'state' model, please state (summarise) the good observational results which are evidence for it.

I also asked about the ~18 km/s "galactic expansion" in Tifft's paper - would you like me to repeat, or clarify, my question on this?

Could you please clarify this?

Specifically:

* what do you consider "Tifft's data from before the time at which he developed his own theory" to be?

* how did you conclude that Tifft's 'state model' was not a theory?

* how did you establish the validity of the reported ~72 km/s redshift periodicies conclusions (derived results) in terms of the long chain of assumptions and calculations that these derived results seem (to me) to depend upon*?It seems that this whole exercise rests upon an assumption, or postulate, (or similar): that the derived conclusions (about a ~72 km/s redshift periodicity) stated in Tifft's paper are valid, in some scientific sense. I understand from your posts in this thread that you are claiming that they are ... are you making such a claim?

Note that if you are making such a claim (which is most assuredly an ATM one), then I trust that you will be able to answer direct, pertinent questions on that claim.

If you are not making such a claim, then what ATM claim are you making?

*This is the third time I am asking you this question; if you don't understand it, please ask for clarification.

(my bold)

It seems in 1994 rtomes was very familiar with the ~18 km/s "galactic expansion" Tifft claimed in his 1978 paper.

How well does the Tifft conclusion re "the true motion of the solar system" match post-HIPPARCOS, mainstream estimates (for the LSR and the peculiar solar motion)?

rtomes: I am not familiar with the term "blends".

Nereid: [snip] Perhaps a simpler question might be: given a perfectly accurate redshift of a galaxy (we'll look at definitions later), which Tifft declares to be not a "monostate", how is a specific redshift period/quantum determined?

rtomes: Arp has reported galaxies that show discontinuities in their redshift profiles of 72 km/s. IMO this would happen when a galaxy is in the process of shifting from one state to the next and would be a bit like water freezing or something like that. It would begin somewhere and spread out as a wave, though there might be a few leaders and laggards. This data of Arp's is hard to explain any other way. Sorry, I do not have a reference for that.

Nereid: If you don't have a reference for it, what merit should this have, in any scientific investigation?

For example, I could claim that "[t]his data of Arp's" was all made up, late one evening after a too many pints at the local pub. Without a reference, how can anyone reading this decide, objectively, whose story is right?